ROUDABUSH v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

Filing 3

OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/29/2015. (bdk, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE

James Lester Roudabush, Jr.,
Petitioner,
v.
Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIV. ACTION NO. 15-5550(RMB)

OPINION

RENÉE MARIE BUMB, U.S. District Judge
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a prisoner confined at FCI Fort Dix, submitted a

self-styled “Petition for Writ of Prohibition,” which was construed
by the Clerk of Court, for administrative purposes, as a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) The
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, confers on “all courts established
by Act of Congress” the ability to “issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” Courts may
issue such writs “only if there is an independent basis for subject
matter jurisdiction.” See In re Wallace, 405 F. Appx. 582 (3d Cir.
2011) (finding no independent basis of jurisdiction in petition for
writ of prohibition).

1

In the present petition, Petitioner alleged he has a First
Amendment

right

to

engage

in

a

hunger

strike

to

protest

constitutional violations by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and its
agents. (Id. at 1-3.) Plaintiff alleged he has been threatened by
staff that they will use procedures, related to his hunger strike,
that are not in the F-BOP regulations. (Id. at 4.) Petitioner asks
this Court to enjoin the F-BOP and its agents, permanently, from
force-feeding him. (Id.) Petitioner also submitted a motion to
expedite the Writ (ECF No. 1 at 7), and an application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1 at 6.)
“Title 28, section 2241 of the United States Code ‘confers
habeas jurisdiction to hear the petition of a federal prisoner who
is challenging not the validity but the execution of his sentence.’”
McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933, 935 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Coady
v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001)). When the petitioner’s
challenge is to a condition of confinement, wherein a finding in the
petitioner’s favor would not alter his sentence or undo his
conviction, a civil rights action under Bivens1 is the appropriate
vehicle for the petitioner’s challenge.

1

See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971) (holding that a federal agent acting under color
of his authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages based
on unconstitutional conduct).
2

Here, Petitioner’s challenge is to a condition of confinement,
his treatment while he is on a hunger strike. See e.g. Collier v.
Adams, 602 F. App’x 850 (3d Cir. 2015) (Bivens action for Eighth
Amendment

violations

related

to

prisoner’s

hunger

strike).

Therefore, Petitioner’s challenges are properly brought in a Bivens
action, and this Court has no basis for jurisdiction over the Petition
for a Writ of Prohibition.
II.

CONCLUSION
In the accompanying Order filed herewith, the Court will dismiss

the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner may, however,
reassert his claims in a properly filed civil rights action.

s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge

3